Leon made clear that the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the suit, “is likely to succeed on the merits because no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”

Leon found that the Constitution was determinative. “The Property Clause vests Congress with complete authority over public lands. See U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 (‘The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States’),” Leon wrote. That means Congress has sole authority over properties like the White House.

However, Trump has more problems than just the Property Clause. The Appropriations Clause (“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”) and the District Clause (giving Congress exclusive power to legislate over the District of Columbia) leave Trump with zero authority to tear down and rebuild the White House. Leon pointed out that even the Trump regime’s lawyers “declined to argue that they have any inherent constitutional authority to build the ballroom.”

That should be the end of it. However, Leon also examined several statutes Trump’s side raised. They do not help Trump’s audacious power grab either. Trump hangs his hat on 3 U.S.C. § 105(d)(l), but that merely authorizes Trump to use funds for “the care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting (including electric power and fixtures) of the Executive Residence at the White House.” Plainly, that doesn’t cover THIS. (Leon’s retort to the argument that this statute provides the legal basis the $400 million construction project is priceless: “Please!”) Since a mere $2.45 million is congressionally allocated for these purposes, Trump had to resort to a “convoluted funding scheme” that does not amount to a congressional authorization for fundraising.

The next statute also slams the door on the Versailles ballroom. “Congress has affirmatively prohibited the ‘erect[ion]’ of ‘[a] building or structure’ ‘on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.’ 40 U.S.C. § 8106,” Leon wrote. He then knocked down the government’s specious argument for why this statute does not apply:

Defendants argue that § 8106 should not be read to constrain the President or limit construction at the White House absent a clear statement. Please! A clear statement rule makes sense when Congress is legislating in an area where the President exercises overlapping constitutional authority.... But Defendants here have disclaimed that the President has any inherent constitutional authority over construction at the White House and have conceded that Congress’s constitutional authority over federal property is “exclusive.”

A separate statute that bars on national parks any “buildings over $1,000 dollars without express authority of Congress” does not help Trump on his $400 million project, Leon ruled. Likewise, the National Park Service Organic Act, which give the NPS authority “to promote and regulate” the park system, has nothing to do with building construction.

In weighing the equities on injunctive relief, Leon had no trouble determining that the imminent harm to the NPS (and the public) justifies halting the project. “It has demonstrated imminent, irreparable harm in the form of ongoing construction of a ballroom that would, in its own words, ‘overshadow[]’ the White House and disrupt the appearance of a historic and cultural icon,” Leon found. “The National Trust has shown that Defendants are making these irreversible changes without statutory or constitutional authority. While the National Trust would be deeply harmed in the absence of an injunction, the Government ‘cannot suffer harm from an injunction that merely ends an unlawful practice.’”

In one last gasp to rescue his monument to poor taste, Trump tried to waive around a claim of “national security.” Leon offers another “Please!” retort:

Please! While I take seriously the Government’s concerns regarding the safety and security of the White House grounds and the President himself, the existence of a “large hole” beside the White House is, of course, a problem of the President’s own making! Bald assertions of “national security” cannot excuse the Government’s failure to follow the law and then insulate those failures from judicial review.

(The White House has been blabbing about the location of a bunker under the East Wing/ballroom site, itself a glaring breach of confidentiality, but he can presumably install a covered entry way of some type.)

Finally, Leon reminded Trump he has a perfect alternative: Go to Congress for authorization and funding. Sure. Let the MAGA lackeys in the House and Senate decide whether to spend $400 million on this eyesore. If they rubber-stamp it, that would be one more reason to flip both houses — which would then allow Democrats to nix funding for this abomination.

Leon’s thorough and snarky put down of each preposterous argument is precisely the sort of undaunted, unflinching, and unequivocal response Trump’s increasingly ludicrous legal arguments requires. Trump’s determination to pursue patently absurd positions — and his lawyers’ willingness to give him thumbs up — point to the essential role of the federal courts in halting the slide into an autocracy run by the whims of a pathological narcissist. Fortunately, Leon, like so many other judges (appointed by presidents of both parties), remains a check against Trump’s mad and unconstitutional scheme.

This might not be the most important legal defeat Trump has suffered, but many Americans may find it among the most satisfying. It is their White House, not Trump’s.

Certainly, New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani ran an historic race, demonstrating brilliant social media skills, electrifying younger voters, and showing Democrats (no matter their ideological profile) how to run on affordability and against the oligarchy (including the most corrupt and cruelest among them, Donald Trump). Mamdani’s victory speech was inspirational and witty (to Trump: “Turn the volume up”; to Andrew Cuomo: “Let tonight be the final time I utter his name”). The thrust of his remarks could be a model message for many candidates:

And while we cast our ballots alone, we chose hope together. Hope over tyranny. Hope over big money and small ideas. Hope over despair. We won because New Yorkers allowed themselves to hope that the impossible could be made possible. And we won because we insisted that no longer would politics be something that is done to us. Now, it is something that we do. …

New York will remain a city of immigrants: a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants and, as of tonight, led by an immigrant.

So hear me, President Trump, when I say this: To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us.

Subscribe now

But when it comes to political daring, foresight, strategy, and undaunted grit, California Gov. Gavin Newsom beat Trump at his own game and changed the 2026 landscape. He saw Trump’s Texas power grab for what it was—a desperate attempt to rig the midterms that Republicans know will be a disaster if they are held to account for the chaos, cruelty, and corruption they have enabled.

Despite skeptics and many Democrats tut-tutting about adhering to norms (even when Republicans have burned the rule book), Newsom was determined to counteract Trump’s Texas gambit. When few thought there was an adequate response to Trump, he (along with Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi) championed and put on the ballot Prop. 50. He gave Californians an opportunity to balance out Trump’s 5-seat grab in Texas with a new California map that could give Democrats five new seats of their own.

The results were spectacular. Prop. 50 won by almost 30 points with robust turnout for a ballot with a single item on it. The “Yes” vote won every demographic group (aside from Republicans and conservatives). It was especially popular among younger voters.

Newsom celebrated the win in a press appearance Tuesday. “What a night for the Democratic Party. A party that is in its ascendancy,” he began. “A party that is on its toes, no longer on its heels. From coast to coast, sea to shining sea,” he said. “But it was not just a victory tonight for the Democratic Party, it was a victory for the United States of America, for the people of this country, and the principles our Founding Fathers lived and died for.”

Newsom warned that Trump’s efforts to rig the elections “carry to this day,” citing his effort to “militarize our streets” and change maps in more states. Stressing that the Prop. 50 campaign was a “90 day sprint” to win, he recalled that Trump sent his shock troops to the Prop. 50 kick-off event and again on Tuesday to Dodger Stadium to intimidate voters. None of Trump’s tactics succeeded. (Republicans have filed suit to try to undo the Prop. 50 victory.)

Although Newsom relished in taking on Trump (“after poking the bear, this bear roared”), his tone was sober and serious, his message direct. He urged other states to join the fight, promising Democrats could effectively end the Trump presidency as soon as “Speaker Hakeem Jeffries” is sworn in.

“We need the state of Virginia,” he said. “We need the state of Maryland. We need our friends in New York, in Illinois, in Colorado — we need to see other states, with their remarkable leaders, that have been doing remarkable things, to meet this moment head-on as well.”

Newsom has gotten well-deserved credit for skewering Trump on social media and defying his efforts to abscond with California’s national guard. But in fighting fire with fire and taking up the challenge to preserve Democrats’ hopes for a midterm victory, he showed Democrats around the country how to fight—and win.

In his undaunted, unafraid, unparalleled effort to thwart Trump’s election chicanery, he has earned the appreciation of his party and of pro-democracy forces from coast to coast. We salute him—and the courageous victors throughout the country on Tuesday—who reminded us that the fight for democracy is not lost. If Democrats win back the House majority in 2026, Newsom will enjoy a large share of the credit.

Share

I would be remiss if I did not mention yesterday’s announcement about Nancy Pelosi’s retirement. Her love letter to San Francisco announcing she would not run for re-election reminds us of her devotion to her adopted city, which she has represented so ably for decades. Since her announcement, I have talked about her legacy with two veteran reporters, Lynn Sweet and Susan Page, in addition to hearing reflections on the Speaker Emerita from her former comms director, Ashley Etienne. Mayor of Oakland Barbara Lee joined the inimitable April Ryan on The Contrarian to extol Pelosi’s legacy of tough love on this yesterday’s episode of “The Tea.”

The Contrarian will have much more to say about this political giant, among the most powerful female politicians in history and one of our greatest speakers of the House. For now, we can say unequivocally that no one better personifies the title of “Undaunted” than the woman who delivered the Affordable Care Act, saved the ACA, passed the rescue bill to spare the economy in 2008, championed human rights and AIDS patients, fought tirelessly for LGBTQ+ and women’s rights, defended the Capitol during Jan. 6, insisted on remaining there to finish certifying the electoral college and assuring Biden’s passage to the presidency, assembled the bipartisan Jan. 6 commission, shepherded through (on the narrowest of margins) President Biden’s remarkable domestic agenda, and time and again stood up to the odious Donald Trump. She has been an avid mentor to so many of our great leaders, including Governor Newsom. We close out our week imbued with gratitude for her service.

Over several months, surrender by a fleet of weak-kneed institutions suggested that Trump might succeed in his dictatorial mission. However, that disturbing trend appears to have stalled. Perhaps Trump overreached, or perhaps popular protests convinced institutional leaders to show some backbone.

In any event, Trump’s familiar extortion playbook seems to have lost some of its punch. Trump’s latest gambit, the so-called compact that he sent to nine prestigious universities, may have flopped. The New York Times reported on Oct. 2:

The Trump administration promised a select set of universities what the government said would be a great deal.

In exchange for agreeing to a list of demands, like limiting international students and protecting conservative voices, universities would get a leg up on grants, potentially beating out the competition for billions in federal funds.

At least one institution, the University of Texas, said it would be eager to sign up.

But then, a curious thing happened. Faculty, students, and alumni began to push back. Condemnation of the compact and talk of boycotts started “while Dartmouth College’s president has responded by saying she will always defend her university’s ‘fierce independence,’” Johns Hopkins professor Harry Farrell wrote last week. Meanwhile, California’s governor, Gavin Newsom threatened “to pull state funding from any institution that signs.”

Subscribe now

Then, the leader of one of the most prestigious universities weighed in. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) president Sally Kornbluth in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon effectively told the Trump bullies to get lost.

Kornbluth first recited her university’s principles: rewarding merit, admitting students regardless of economic need, and guarding free expression. She then drew a line in the sand in terms that old-school conservatives would have appreciated:

We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission—work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law.

The [Trump proposed compact]… includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution. And fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.

In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence. In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences.

MIT’s stance, as Inside Higher Education reported, generated widespread praise from academics:

“I am proud to say that MIT has rejected Trump’s poison compact,” American Association of University Professors president Todd Wolfson wrote on Bluesky shortly after the news broke.

And some scholars suggested that MIT had established a precedent that others may look to. Brendan Cantwell, a higher education professor at Michigan State University, questioned in a post on Bluesky whether MIT’s action changes “the calculus” for the other eight universities. . . .

Lawmakers such as Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) also weighed in. “This is what courage in the face of authoritarianism looks like. No university should take Trump’s bribe & surrender their integrity—bending the knee to a bully only feeds the beast & puts ALL our rights at risk.” Even Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has taken to battling Trump on the Epstein files, praised MIT. “The surest way to screw up the world’s best technical school is to let feds tell them how to run it,” Massie wrote. “Congrats to my alma mater for turning down a bribe to let the executive branch dictate what happens on its campus.”

And, lo and behold, Brown University followed suit on Thursday. “I am concerned that the Compact by its nature and by various provisions would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown’s governance, critically compromising our ability to fulfill our mission,” its president reaffirmed.

Then, in quick succession, the University of Penn reportedly rejected the proposed preferential funding compact, as did the University of Southern California (USC). Meanwhile, the other institutions that originally received the proposed Faustian bargain (University of Arizona, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia) will have to decide whether to follow MIT’s principled stance or enable Trump’s totalitarian project.

After the MIT humiliation, the Trump regime decided to shop the compact to all universities. We will see if any take the deal MIT, Brown, Penn, and USC rejected.

MIT, followed by three other universities, distinguished itself by remaining undaunted in defense of free expression, academic independence, and intellectual rigor, demonstrating that resistance is not futile. MIT and those that followed its lead deserve our recognition and gratitude for standing up to the bully-in-chief.

We hope others beyond higher ed look to the trend MIT initiated. (Interestingly, virtually all major news outlets this week also rejected the Pentagon’s outrageous and onerous restrictions on their reporting; in addition, more airports are refusing to run DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s propaganda video.)

You—our Contrarian community—know that the antidotes to bullying are spine and solidarity. By turning out (and bringing family, friends, and neighbors!) at a No Kings Day event on Saturday, you can help make this the largest day of protest in American history.

However, it was not until I saw her posthumously-released interview that I fully appreciated that it was her abiding faith in the sanctity of individuals and the power of our collective agency that set such a powerful example for me.

Her interview should absolutely be watched in its entirety. But one portion transcended her field and seemed particularly attuned to our current crises:

I want to make sure that you all understand that each and every one of you has a role to play. You may not know it, you may not find it, but your life matters, and you are here for a reason.

And I just hope that reason will become apparent as you live through your life. I want you to know that, whether or not you find that role that you’re supposed to play, your life does matter, and that every single day you live, you make a difference in the world. And you get to choose the difference that you make.

I want you to understand that we are part of the natural world. And even today, when the planet is dark, there still is hope. Don’t lose hope. If you lose hope, you become apathetic and do nothing. And if you want to save what is still beautiful in this world—if you want to save the planet for the future generations, your grandchildren, their grandchildren—then think about the actions you take each day.

Because, multiplied a million, a billion times, even small actions will make for great change.

Share

She may have been focused primarily on climate change and conservation, but her guiding philosophy delivered with such sincerity also serves us well as we battle not just for the survival of the planet, but the survival of our democracy. Her faith that we all have a role, a purpose (what Nancy Pelosi calls our “why”) speaks to people who may currently feel powerless. Her insight that finding one’s purpose is a lifelong process recognizes that we can find our path at age nine or age ninety. And her clarion call to use our agency to save “what is beautiful” applies to the ongoing struggle to save what is just and decent and true.

Goodall’s message translated into the world of politics and governance is powerful and universal. It is not hard to figure out why despotic, cruel, hateful, anti-intellectual, and corrupt forces spend so much effort trying to intimidate and cow us into submission, silence our voices, and prod us to collapse in a puddle of fatalism.

Donald Trump’s over-the-top invective, deployment of violent shock troops, nonstop lies and chaos, and utter domination of his own party are all designed to paralyze or at least disorient pro-democracy forces. It would be so easy to conclude that the MAGA storm is so destructive and all-encompassing that resistance is futile.

Her remarks also remind us that very few people attain the reach and influence of a Jane Goodall (or a Ghandi, a Martin Luther King, Jr., or a Ruth Bader Ginsburg) but that our failure to achieve universal recognition should not be the measure of our success or effectiveness. Indeed, those heroic figures succeeded to the degree they did by influencing the rest of us. They became who they were because millions, if not billions, echoed their words, magnified their actions, and built on their insights.

Subscribe now

In the political realm, an undaunted figure such as Goodall provides a much needed infusion of energy and optimism. But there are innumerable others who provide inspiration every week, all with different purposes, and all of whom we need to carry on the fight—from the Portland Frog demonstrator whose gentle humor perfectly embodies the essence of its city to WNBA star Napheesa Collier who took on the clueless and condescending league commissioner to ACLU lawyers filing dozens of cases around the country to ordinary Americans documenting government misconduct and photographing ICE abuse to activists from Indivisible and other groups organizing the second No Kings Day to teachers devoted to protecting and enlightening their students. Each plays a critical role in preserving our democracy. And so do you.

Goodall’s impactful life should inspire and energize us in the fight for democracy—but as do so many others who are finding their role. We will need every one of them to defeat a movement built on lies, intimidation, abuse of power, cynicism, greed, ignorance, and hate. We salute the undaunted, the unbowed, and the unafraid—however large or small their profile.

In one of the most damning opinions I have ever read, Ronald Reagan appointee U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston held that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and their subordinates “acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target non-citizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech.” He meticulously dissected their gross First Amendment violations, denounced this administration’s attack on dissent, and made a moving plea for Americans to care about our precious rights and liberties.

A sample of what Young wrote about Donald Trump:

He meets dissent from his orders in those other two branches by demonizing and disparaging the speakers, sometimes descending to personal vitriol.

Dissent elsewhere among our people is likewise disfavored, often in colorful scurrilous terms. All this the First Amendment capaciously and emphatically allows. When he drifts off into calling people “traitors” and condemning them for “treason,” however, he reveals an ignorance of the crime and the special burden of proof it requires. More important, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment; it is defamatory. In his official capacity as President, however, President Trump enjoys broad immunity from any civil liability.

Young also excoriated Trump for his retribution campaign against political enemies. “Where things run off the rails for him is his fixation with ‘retribution.’ ‘I am your retribution,’ he thundered famously while on the campaign trail.” He then enumerated instances in which courts have intervened to protect law firms, the media, and universities.

Young ended with an ominous question:

I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected. Is he correct?

This opinion is bound to stand the test of time as a magnificent indictment of Trump and defense of the First Amendment. If only the Supreme Court MAGA justices were as clear-eyed and committed to defense of the Constitution as Judge Young.

Judge Young was not the only heroic figure this week. Hundreds of our top military officers (unnecessarily dragged away from posts around the world to Quantico, Va. at the cost of $6M to taxpayers) illustrated their loyalty to the Constitution. They remained stone-faced and refused to applaud during the most cringeworthy addresses ever delivered by a secretary of defense and a commander in chief.

Trump and his unqualified, clownish Secretary of Defense (who strutted around the stage issuing vulgar pronouncements and silly cliches) grossly underestimated the integrity of our top brass. As the New York Times reported, “The military officers assembled in the room listened silently. It is likely, though, that at least some of them were seething at his suggestion that their collective failure to enforce basic standards had caused, or even contributed to, the military’s failings in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Some likely left more convinced than ever that Trump is nuts and Hegseth is a joke.

Military leaders who have attained such high rank and put in decades of service could not help but be repulsed by Trump’s vile suggestion that “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.” Hearing the president declare that “America is under invasion from within…no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in any ways because they don’t wear uniforms” would deeply disgust senior officers steeped in Constitutional norms and a sense of duty. Some previously may not have fully grasped the depth of their civilian leaders’ moral, intellectual, and temperamental unfitness.

Although Hegseth and Trump disgraced themselves, uniformed military leadership did us proud. Now, however, they must navigate the next 3-plus years without endangering national security and violating their constitutional oaths. (Frankly, in a functioning democracy, Trump would be carted away under the 25^th Amendment, and Hegseth would be compelled to resign.)

Subscribe now

Meanwhile, another band of undaunted democracy advocates rose to the occasion in Portland, Oregon. Local and state politicians, faith groups, community organizers, and unions had prepared for Trump’s military occupation, which he has telegraphed for months. Civil society and political leaders came out in unison to oppose the invasion of federal forces. They blanketed social media with lovely scenes of their peaceful city and mocked the notion their city was “war ravaged.”

An umbrella community group Protect Oregon kept the public informed and put out a uniform message. “Any takeover of any community in Oregon is an abuse of power, a gross federal overreach, and a misuse of the military,” its website explained. “People across the state and the political spectrum are coming together to peacefully oppose politically motivated attacks on our communities.” It also helped organize a peaceful demonstration on Sunday away from the ICE facility.

Most important, within hours of Trump’s announcement, state and local authorities filed a lawsuit (set for hearing today) spelling out why the deployment is illegal and unconstitutional. “While Congress has delegated a portion of that power to the Executive, it carefully limited the President’s authority to exert control over a state’s National Guard—the modern term for the militia—to specific circumstances,” the complaint stated. “And for over a century and a half, Congress has expressly forbidden federal military interference in civilian law enforcement.” It continued: “Defendants have trampled on these principles by federalizing members of the Oregon National Guard for deployment in Portland, Oregon, to participate in civilian law enforcement.”

It was a magnificent “whole of society” response to authoritarian bullying. Trump looked unhinged and clueless. In one of the most revelatory comments he has ever made, Trump asked, “Am I watching things on television that are different from what’s happening?” Well, if he is watching footage of disturbances from five year ago running on MAGA media, he sure is.

All told, from a courtroom in Boston to an auditorium in Quantico to Portland, undaunted, unbowed, and unapologetic patriots took up the fight to preserve democracy. We take confidence in knowing that while MAGA fanatics plot to destroy the republic, much larger legions of courageous, principled, and astute pro-democracy voices remain loud and determined.

Americans vividly demonstrated this by coming together this week to protest and boycott Disney after ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel. Activists did not wait for politicians. They jumped into the fray, put out a toolkit on social media, organized in-person protests, and shifted the national conversation from Trump’s disgusting blame-mongering about Charlie Kirk’s murder to defense of the First Amendment.

Subscribe now

These scrappy First Amendment activists have not let up, as evidenced by an email I received Wednesday, announcing that multiple organizations were “calling for boycotts of Sinclair and Nexstar owned stations” even after Kimmel’s return proved that “collective action can defeat censorship.” The email explained:

But even as Disney backed down, Sinclair and Nexstar continue to pre-empt Jimmy Kimmel in dozens of markets, weaponizing their control of local news stations to silence dissent and comply with President Trump’s demands. Organizers are calling on communities everywhere to show up at corporate offices and local stations this Friday—and to continue boycotting Sinclair- and Nexstar-owned news outlets until they end their role in regime-backed censorship.

While the boycotts and protests gained steam, fellow comedians swiftly responded to Kimmel’s suspension with brilliant satire, public education, and encouraging messages. Although they risked getting yanked from their platforms, they did not flinch—unlike so many craven law firms, universities and tech companies that have grovelled before Trump.

Stephen Colbert’s delicious parody “Shut your trap” (instead of “Be our guest”) from Disney’s Beauty & the Beast will forever stick in my head. His serious message was persuasive and succinct: “With an autocrat, you cannot give an inch.”

Over at the Daily Show, Jon Stewart’s satirical bootlicking (“We have another fun, hilarious, administration-compliant show”) perfectly captured Trump megalomania and his cult worshipers’ daftness. His snark also conveyed the magnitude of the threat:

Our great administration has laid out very clear rules on free speech. Now some naysayers may argue that this administration’s speech concerns are merely a cynical ploy. A thin gruel of a ruse. A smoke screen to obscure an unprecedented consolidation of power and unitarian intimidation and coldly antithetical to any experiment in a constitutional republic governance. Some people would say that. Not me though. I think it’s great.

And in his fact-filled and witty segment, Jon Oliver took his audience meticulously and hilariously through the sequence of events, jabbed at the Trump regime’s arrogance, and laid out the consequences if we let free speech slip away (including references to Viktor Orban and Vladimir Putin.)

Calling the pretext for taking him off the air “laughably weak,” Oliver pointed out that Kimmel’s statement “didn’t denigrate Charlie Kirk or make light of his killing.” Oliver, like Colbert, also warned, “Giving the bully your lunch money doesn’t make him go away, it just makes him come back hungrier each time.”

Share

The energy and righteous indignation from outspoken cultural figures plus popular action can inspire others. Sure enough, on Monday, the ACLU released a letter signed by 400 big stars decrying the outrageous violation of the First Amendment. “Teachers, government employees, law firms, researchers, universities, students and so many more are also facing direct attacks on their freedom of expression,” the signers stated. Regardless of their politics, they declared that “our voices should never be silenced by those in power—because if it happens to one of us, it happens to all of us.” They closed with a call to action: “This is the moment to defend free speech across our nation. We encourage all Americans to join us, along with the ACLU, in the fight to defend and preserve our constitutionally protected rights.”

Thanks to backlash, Kimmel returned to a record audience of over 6.2 million viewers on Tuesday. He demonstrated remarkable graciousness, acknowledging some felt his comments “either ill-timed or unclear or maybe both.” He also singled out right-wingers who supported him “Ben Shapiro, Clay Travis, Candace Owens, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, even my old pal Ted Cruz”. He also complimented Erika Kirk. “That is an example we should follow. …A selfless act of grace: forgiveness from a grieving widow.” In other words, he was a class act—utterly unlike Trump.

Most critically, Kimmel pointed out other ongoing threats to the First Amendment (e.g., the Pentagon’s attempt to restrict coverage) and extolled the public’s effectiveness. “Thanks to [all] who supported our show, cared enough to do something about it, to make your voices heard so that mine could be heard.” He included a hopeful note: “Maybe the silver lining from this is we found one thing we can agree on, and maybe we’ll even find another one.”

Quoting Abraham Lincoln, former speaker Nancy Pelosi is fond of reminding us, “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.” We saw this week how quickly sentiment can be aroused, and how powerful it can be once it builds. When Americans were pushed, their intuitive sense of right and wrong and attachment to our basic rights came to the fore.

In sum, many undaunted defenders of free speech—Kimmel, other comedians, celebrities, Hollywood unions and the ACLU—rose to the occasion. But above all, the enormous power of collective action forced ABC to reinstate Kimmel. Americans’ willingness to wield their consumer power can be a powerful counterweight to tyrants and corporate enablers.

The Kimmel incident may mark a new phase in the democracy fight. Once they experience the exhilaration that victory through collective action can bring, previously unengaged Americans may appreciate their power and be inspired to join the pro-democracy movement. If so, then the Disney Boycott may go down as the 21^st century version of the Boston Tea Party.

The modern day Sons and Daughters of Liberty deserve our praise and gratitude for their unbowed, undiminished, and unwavering devotion to freedom.

ABC, which already caved to Trump in delivering a $15M tribute in the form of a “settlement” of a frivolous case, should learn that you can never appease a dictator. Capitulation is just an invitation to further extortion.

Ironically, Trump now forces the debate to center on our First Amendment. Regardless of party, we can agree that government censorship is un-American. Hollywood unions and guilds can take collective action against Disney/ABC for folding; Americans can call local TV affiliate stations to demand ABC put Kimmel back on; Disney shareholders can reject quisling management; and House and Senate Democratic leaders can do something, such as demand Carr to be fired/step down. (They can also vow to impeach him if he is still around when they win back the House.)

Even before the Kimmel suspension, Trump, JD Vance, and the entire Trump regime launched a cynical, dangerous attack on their political enemies based on the lie that “the Left” was responsible for Kirk’s murder. So far, we have no concrete evidence of the killer’s political outlook (having a trans roommate does not make one a “leftist;” just as being raised by Republican parents does not make one a MAGA extremist)—or if the killer possesses a coherent political ideology.

Trump nevertheless declared “ANTIFA” (an amorphous, decentralized grab-bag of characters) a domestic terror organization, a move that opens the door to pursuing scores of groups he (baselessly) alleges have ties to “ANTIFA.” By Thursday he was brazenly declaring that networks that criticize him should lose their licenses. This is fascism in plain sight.

As Trump fully embraced his twisted self-image as a dictator, several Democrats stepped forward: Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y), Democratic Sens Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Tina Smith (D-Minn.), and Reps. Jason Crow (D-Col.), Greg Casar (D-Tex), and Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) announced introduction of the No Political Enemies (NOPE) Act, “To protect individuals and organizations, including non-profits, faith groups, media outlets, and educational institutions, from politically motivated targeting and prosecution by the federal government.” We thank them for governing.

Share

The most robust leadership in the democracy fight is coming from governors, recently from Illinois Gov. JD Pritzker (on military occupation of cities) and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (on Trump’s effort to rig the 2026 elections through re-redistricting that diminishes primarily Black and Hispanic voting power). This week, another articulate Democratic governor stepped up, this time to address political violence.

With a solid record on public safety and personal experience with political violence, Pennsylvania’s Gov. Josh Shapiro was ideally suited to the task. Last year, during Passover Seder, a man threw two Molotov cocktails into the Shapiro’s family home, igniting a fire. (Trump conveniently ignores the incident when reciting recent acts of political violence). His state was also the location of the worst mass murder of Jews in America (by a White nationalist) and of the first attempted assassination of Trump. Shapiro knows violence does not come from one ideological group.

He delivered remarks this week at the Eradicate Hate Global Summit. “I will not be deterred in my work for you, and I will not be silenced,” he declared. He then explained why violence is antithetical to democracy: “It tears at the fabric of American society, and the fundamental principles this nation was founded upon... A nation where civil disagreement should be welcome, because that discourse can lead to progress.”

He also rejected selective outrage. “Unfortunately, some—from the dark corners of the internet all the way to the Oval Office—want to cherry pick which instances of political violence they want to condemn,” he said, pointing out that such crass opportunism makes healing impossible.

Shapiro then made the critical point: “Censorship—using the long arm of government to silence people, businesses, and nonprofits and restrict their right to free speech—will not solve this problem.” He declared, “Prosecuting constitutionally protected speech will only erode our freedoms and deepen mistrust. That is un-American.”

The governor also argued that to stop violence, we need to fund law enforcement and help young people cope with violent extremism online that sucks them into to a dark world of nihilism, destruction, and performative violence. He pointed to his wife’s work on a “digital literacy toolkit that teachers and parents can use to help our kids navigate online.”

Refusing to adopt the legacy media framing reducing everything to right vs. left combat, Shapiro seized the opportunity to educate Americans about the prevalence of alienation and hopelessness, which leads to loss of confidence in institutions. Too many people, especially children and young adults, are left vulnerable to violent messengers who play on their profound loneliness.

“Frustrated by a lack of progress and consumed by a feeling of hopelessness, they find refuge, often in the dark corners of the internet where their righteous frustration is taken advantage of and used to foment hate,” Shapiro said. Government therefore must retain people’s trust and offer techniques to prevent violent radicalization. Moreover, all Americans must “see our common humanity” and “reject the forces that are trying to pull us apart.”

At a press conference, Shapiro insisted, according to the New York Times, “We need to be universal in our condemnation,” adding that Trump has once again failed the “leadership test, failed the morality test, and it makes us all less safe.”

Subscribe now

The autocrat’s excuse for crushing civil liberties amounts to a false choice between free speech and public safety. The overwhelming number of elected Republicans have refused to denounce Trump’s crusade of vengeance and censorship. We find no better illustration of the depths to which the MAGA Republican Party has sunk.

Shapiro’s provided a model for addressing the issue: Condemn all violence. Denounce selective outrage. Zealously defend the First Amendment, and call out censors. Give young people tools to guard against online radicalization. Also, show Americans that compassionate, sensible, and effective government can improve their lives.

We applaud Shapiro’s undaunted pursuit of sanity, decency, public safety, and First Amendment rights. These are times that demand fortitude from our leaders. All those exhibiting it deserve our acknowledgement, our gratitude, and our praise.